Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[This_person]

I thought we were discussing what the original intent of the legislator was.

We know what the original intent was; it was to stop another attempt to write a new constitution and move forward with the current one. I think, if I remember right, that Madison introduced the entire bill of rights for consideration by saying something like they were "neither improper nor completely useless". He referred to them as "safe, if not necessary, and those politic, if not obligatory, amendments". That so many framers/founders found it okay to "violate the spirit" of this tells me that they didn't really violate anything but a few people's opinions. That Madison "violated" this himself tells me what his intent really was.

So, I was speaking in more practical terms of what this actually means, not what lauditory words were spoken of it to get it passed.

 

[FredFlash]

...a recommendation is not a law...

If a religious recommendation is not meant to carry some legal authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it, even if the proscription is nothing more than negative or unfavorable public opinion, then why clothed it in civil authority?

A religious recommendation issued by executive proclamation, is a law as the word "law" is used in the First Amendment, because it comes clothed with legal authority.

 

[This_person]

...a recommendation is not a law...

If a religious recommendation is not meant to carry some legal authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it, even if the proscription is nothing more than negative or unfavorable public opinion, then why clothed it in civil authority?

A religious recommendation issued by executive proclamation, is a law as the word "law" is used in the First Amendment, because it comes clothed with legal authority.

Then, by that logic, ALL executive recommendations are equal to "Congress shall make ... law..."?

Do you see that this is not true?

 

[FredFlash]

I believe it refers to every god the American public trusts.

Why do you believe that is what Congress meant?

It's an encompassing statement, not a divisive one, as it refers to no specific god, and over 80% of the population believes in one or another form of a god.

You say that, it refers to no specific God, like that is a good thing? That is a bad thing! We need to know which God Congress is advising us to trust.

 

[FredFlash]

We seem to be having this argument from very very very different perspectives. I'm discussing the limitations and roles of government while you are talking about God's claims.

If a leader's recommendations are an assumption of civil authority, they always are. If they aren't always, they aren't ever. It matters not the subject.

OK. All recommendations, that come clothed in civil authority, are assumptions of civil authority over the subject matter of the recommendation. I have no problem with that.

 

[FredFlash]

The first amendment's establishment clause is the people's way of ensuring their government does not try to take authority it doesn't have, not a way of protecting your God's claims from government usurpation.

The reason religion is excluded from the authority of government, is because that authority belongs absolutely and exclusively to God, and we don't want civil government getting between men and God's authority over their salvation.

 

[This_person]

Why do you believe that is what Congress meant?

Because of the 1864 law. Why do you think it's not?

You say that, it refers to no specific God, like that is a good thing? That is a bad thing! We need to know which God Congress is advising us to trust.

Fortunately, Congress is not advising us to trust any god, they're allowing it to be shown that we already do! There is no advice in "In Reason We Trust", in "English is what we speak", nor "In God We Trust", it's just a statement. If "we" disagree, "we" should fight it in court.

Oh, wait, it was, and the concept that it's a religious duty was overthrown as unreasonable.

 

[This_person]

OK. All recommendations, that come clothed in civil authority, are assumptions of civil authority over the subject matter of the recommendation. I have no problem with that.

That's scary, because it's not based in any part of reality. That was my point.

 

[FredFlash]

You have the right to your god, I have the right to mine, and others have their rights to have no god. The government cannot tell us which one to have.

I know, that's why we don't want the government telling us that, "in God we trust", or even implying it.

 

[This_person]

The reason religion is excluded from the authority of government, is because that authority belongs absolutely and exclusively to God, and we don't want civil government getting between men and God's authority over their salvation.

100% wrong. The reason religion is excluded from the authority of government is because that authority lies absolutely and exclusively with the idividual. For what you said to be true implies that individuals don't have the right to choose their own religion, their own way of demonstrating and practicing their religion, or their own desire to have a religion based upon no beliefs or worships of anyone nor anything. The second half of what the religious portion of the first amendment states completely rules out your interpretation.

 

[This_person]

I know, that's why we don't want the government telling us that, "in God we trust", or even implying it.

I see no problem in our money declaring to ourselves and others what our national composition is primarily made up of.

 

[FredFlash]

"Religious truth" is not even a part of "In God We Trust". It's statistical truth about the makeup of the country. Nothing is declaring what the "religious truth", or Truth is. In no way does the phrase "In Reason We Trust" declaring that the only "Truth" in life is reason. It's a statement of a plurality of belief. In no way does "In God We Trust" assume a governmental jurisdiction over salvation. I honestly cannot fathom the argument that would get your mind there.

The truth is, "In God Most Of Us Trust." Will you join me in an effort to change the motto to one that is the whole truth?

 

[This_person]

The truth is, "In God Most Of Us Trust." Will you join me in an effort to change the motto to one that is the whole truth?

I'm there for ya!

 

[FredFlash]

I agree, so it's a good thing that it didn't try to do that. It is stating a statistical truth, not a religious one.

Religion is the duty we owe to our Creator, and trust in God is a duty owed to God. Therefore, trust in God is a matter of religion. Matters of religion are exempt from the cognizance of government.

 

[This_person]

Religion is the duty we owe to our Creator, and trust in God is a duty owed to God. Therefore, trust in God is a matter of religion. Matters of religion are exempt from the cognizance of government.

I'm trying to figure out if you disagree based upon your belief in your principle, regardless of the facts - or if you just don't understand the facts.

The edict to trust in God comes from religion. The reporting that you do trust in a god does not in any way change whether those who will, will and those who won't, won't. It implies no duty.

This has been debated all the way to the Supreme Court (which rejected the assertion without dignifying it with comment), and the assertion that "In God We Trust" is an establishement of religion is not a legally accurate assertion. It's "settled law", to borrow the phrase.

 

[FredFlash]

I agree, so it's a good thing that it didn't try to do that. It is stating a statistical truth, not a religious one.

It implies a duty to trust God and that the civil magistrate has authority over religion. Authority to declare the religion of the people was never granted to the government.

Congress is clearly not identifying A god in which we trust. It's make a statement that the bulk of us believe in one god or another.

The government was never granted jurisdiction over whether or not we believe in God.

It's not vague religion

The meaning of vague is "not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed." The identity of the God, that Congress wants us to trust, is not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed. Therefore, the statement is vague.

 

[This_person]

It implies a duty to trust God and that the civil magistrate has authority over religion. Authority to declare the religion of the people was never granted to the government.

This is rapidly turning into:
yuh huh

nuh uh

yuh huh

nuh uh

I understand you understand neither the English behind the words, nor the legality behind the concept, and I'll end the motto discussion here.

The government was never granted jurisdiction over whether or not we believe in God.

That's right, that's why it doesn't act like it has any jurisdiction (ie, why it doesn't try to establish a religion like that). See comment above.

The meaning of vague is "not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed." The identity of the God, that Congress wants us to trust, is not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed. Therefore, the statement is vague.

Right, it's vague, but not religion. See comment above.

 

[FredFlash]

I understand you understand neither the English behind the words.

What words?

nor the legality behind the concept.

What concept?

That's right, that's why it doesn't act like it has any jurisdiction (ie, why it doesn't try to establish a religion like that).

What if Congress made a law declaring that you don't trust in God? Would that be an establishment of your religion, in the sense that it set up, for you, the duty not to trust in God?

Right, it's vague, but not religion.

Are you saying that the duty to trust in God is not a religious/sacred matter? Are you saying that trust in God is a secular/temporal matter that civil authority has jurisdiction over, and may legitimately regulate, or at least make the subject of its official advice?

Why is civil government competent to issue religious advice, but incompetent to issue religious orders?

 

[This_person]

What words?

The English behind the words of the motto. This means that you can't seem to grasp the concept that saying a phrase, a statement that identifies a fact, is not a civil authority assumption of a required duty to the people.

It's a sentence. Of fact. No duty.

The words "In God We Trust", grammatically, has no difference than "English is the language we speak". It is not a duty to speak English. It's not an assumption of civil authority over the language we speak. It's not a language. It's a factual sentence.

Those words.

What concept?

The concept that a motto is not a religion. It's not an assumption of civil authority. The Supreme Court agreed when it rejected the same motto on a government building when that was challenged. A lower court (hasn't made it to the SCOTUS yet) said the same thing when this exact motto was challenged recently.

That legal concept.

What if Congress made a law declaring that you don't trust in God? Would that be an establishment of your religion, in the sense that it set up, for you, the duty not to trust in God?

Let's see, the first portion of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and your hypothetical is a law that has in it an establishment of a religion - atheism. The next part reads "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and your hypothetical does not allow me to be any religion I choose to be, as it restricts trusting in a god. So, yep, on two points, it meets a violation of the First Amendment.

I'm glad you decided to move on from the motto, as this clearly has nothing to do with the motto.

Are you saying that the duty to trust in God is not a religious/sacred matter?

Absolutely not. "The DUTY" is an individual's choice to have or not have, based upon their religion. "The STATEMENT" that people do (or do not) has nothing to do with a duty.

Are you saying that trust in God is a secular/temporal matter that civil authority has jurisdiction over, and may legitimately regulate, or at least make the subject of its official advice?

This is several questions, wrapped up as one:
Is trust in God a secular/temporal matter? No, clearly not
Is it a matter that civil authority has jurisdiction over? Nope
Is it a matter that may be regulated? Not according to our constitution, no
Is it a matter that the government may offer advice about? Of course. To not allow people to offer advise, regardless of their job, would violate the First Amendment twice - you'd prohibit their free exercise of their religion, and you'd violate their right to speak.

Why is civil government competent to issue religious advice, but incompetent to issue religious orders?

Because anyone can offer whatever advise they choose. To enforce advice advise would be akin to establishing that the advise must be followed. Establishing that the advise to drive no faster than 30 miles per hour in a residential district - within the generally accepted boundaries of civil authority. Establishing that the advise to pray as a law - outside the generally accepted boundaries of civil authority.

Do you see the difference?

 

[FredFlash]

The English behind the words of the motto. This means that you can't seem to grasp the concept that saying a phrase, a statement that identifies a fact, is not a civil authority assumption of a required duty to the people.

What if the statement was "baptize infants", "don't believe in transubstantiation", "Jesus saves" or "Christian Nation?" Would those statements, if made by Congress passing a law, be an assumption of authority over religion? What if the statement was "don't baptize infants", "believe transubstantiation" or "Jesus destroys?"

An assumption of civil authority, over religion at least, does not have to involve any penalty for non-compliance other than the mere implication that those who don't comply with the advice will be putting themselves at risk, even if the potential harm is nothing more than than public censure, which is present in any official religious recommendation of the government.

If religious recommendations don't imply civil power over religion, why did ten thousand Republicans get so pissed off at John Adams for recommending a fast?